Saturday, January 31, 2009

Ammon Hennacy's "One Man Revolution."

As some in the peace movement decide to take a break from their vigils because a Democrat is in the White House, we could all learn from past antiwar activists who, though they faced much greater odds, refused to become complacent or apathetic.

One of the best examples is Ammon Hennacy. If Hennacy were alive today, he’d probably be a blogger and a darn good one too. Blogging would have seemed an ideal way to promote his “One Man Revolution.” Like starting a blog, the strategy he advocated was open to everyone. For him, it required nothing more than a homemade sign, some stationary, a stamp, and a pen.

Hennacy spent decades promoting his own special brand of Christian anarchism, tax resistance, and pacifism. He was born on July 24, 1893 on a farm near Negley, Ohio. His ancestors were abolitionists and a picture of John Brown was on the parlor wall. As a young adult, he became a socialist and refused to register for the draft during World War I. While there, one of his cellmates, the famous Alexander Berkman, converted him to anarchism.

During World War II, Hennacy did not flinch in his pacifist views. He not only refused to register for the draft but announced that he would not pay his income taxes. He also avoided tax liability through a life of voluntary poverty, reliance on barter, and advocacy of a decentralized economy based on mutual aid (shades of Karl Hess). During this period, he declared: “As a Christian Anarchist, I refuse to support any government, for, first, as a Christian, all government denies the Sermon on the Mount by a return of evil for evil in legislatures, courts, prisons, and war. As an anarchist I agree with Jefferson that ’that government is best which governs least.’”

During the Cold War, the one man revolution kicked into high gear. In 1950, for example, he led a one-man picket against nuclear tests. He declared, “I am not paying my income taxes this year, and I haven’t done so for the last seven years. I don’t expect to stop World War III by my refusal to pay, but I don’t believe in paying for something I don’t believe in-do you?“ During this period, Hennacy became increasingly friendly with Dorothy Day, who published the Catholic Worker. In 1964, he wrote a combination autobiography and political treatise, The Book of Ammon. He died in 1970. We need more of his kind today.

Friday, January 30, 2009

How to Save a Trillion Dollars

Obama Rattles More Sabers in Afghanistan and Iran

The bad news just keeps coming from Obama. In the last few days, NATO (U.S.) General John Craddock ordered his troops to widen the already futile Afghan War and kill all drug dealers (apparently on sight).

Now, we are told that an attack on Iran is "still on the table." When will progressives put aside their illusions about Obama?

An excellent move for HAW would be to demand that Obama stop the threats against Iran and publicly denounce Craddock's statements or, better yet, fire him.

Antiwar Americans were instrumental in getting Obama the nomination and electing him. They need to start demanding some reciprocity.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Ein Raum ohne Volk für ein Volk ohne Raum? - Obama and U.S. history

In an interview with Al-Arabiya, President Barack Obama stated that the United States had no colonial legacy - arguably true if one uses a narrow definition of colonialism and understands that the remark was made in the context of a conversation about the Middle East. He later clarified, however, agreeing with the interviewer that "America was not born as a colonial power."

HAW steering committee member Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz responds to this extraordinary interpretation of our past with a short history lesson over at commondreams.org.

Time for the Antiwar Movement to Take a Break?

The North Country Veterans for Peace in Potsdam, NY thinks so. Historians might want to tell them -- and all the people who believed Obama would bring peace -- that no Democratic president -- especially not Obama's heroes JFK, Truman, FDR, and Wilson -- has "shared the values" of the antiwar movement.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Ms. Magazine Mocks Feminism, Promotes Imperialism

This month's "Special Inaugural Issue" of Ms. Magazine is not only irritating many feminists with its cover, it also contains an implicit call for greater U.S. intervention in Afghanistan. Alisa Tang's article, "Lives on the Line," tells of the suffering of women under the resurgent Taliban and quotes an anonymous Afghan woman who, "in the seven years since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the extremist Muslim Taliban regime, . . . had finished high school, studied journalism in college and landed a job at a national television station. . . . Now her in-laws want her to stop working, threatening that they will take away her children otherwise." The article concludes with a plea from Manizha Naderi, "an Afghan American who runs the Women for Afghan Women aid organization," that "U.S. President Barack Obama will commit more money for infrastructure development, factory construction and employment" so that Afghan women will have more job opportunities. I don't think the Obama administration could have written a better argument to convince liberals and feminists to support the escalation of the war.

Thankfully, historians with a longer view will remember that "victimized" women were used as justifications for imperialist wars from the nineteenth century to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.www.thaddeusrussell.com

Has Obama Now Become a Murderer?

One reason power corrupts is that it puts people in a position to choose options with which they would ordinarily never be faced. Our new President has just passed a significant milestone on the road to hell, one that he would be unlikely to have passed in ordinary life: he is now a murderer

Biden: "Change" Means More Death

The new Vice President has announced that there will be an "uptick" in the number of American casualties in Afghanistan. Of course, he and Obama have been saying this all along. Maybe now their supporters will listen.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Obama's War: Longer than Vietnam?

"Change" and "hope" were the mantras that got Obama's elected but he appears to offering us the same old gruel: perpetual war and futile Wilsonianism in foreign policy. Richard Holbrooke, Obama's envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, predicts that the Afghan War (now in its eighth year) will outlast the longest war in American history (Vietnam, fourteen years) .

There are some problems that can't be solved by shouting "yes we can," even if backed up with more U.S. blood and treasure, and this is one of them.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama's War

Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.

[haw-info] Reminder: HAW Steering Committee elections

A Reminder: if you have not yet voted for the Historians Against theWar (HAW) Steering Committee, do so before the deadline of Monday, January26, 2008. This year the voting for the HAW Steering Committee will bedone entirely by email. The candidates for the 20 Steering Committeeslots are listed below. Their statements can be read athttp://www.historiansagainstwar.org/aha09/nominations.html. To vote, typean "x" next to the names of up to 20 candidates, and send the ballot toproxy@historiansagainstwar.org. The deadline for receiving ballots isMonday, Jan. 26.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Horton Interviews Horton (War Crimes Prosecutions)

In this audio, Scott Horton, the host of antiwar.com radio, interviews the internatonal human rights lawyer (also named Scott Horton) on the possibility of war crimes prosecutions of Bush administration officials.

Friday, January 16, 2009

[haw-info] HAW Steering Committee statement on Gaza

The following statement has been adopted, after discussion, by the HAW Steering Committee.

The Steering Committee of Historians Against the War (HAW) wishes to add its voice to those who protest the collective punishment levied by the Israeli government against the civilian population of Gaza. The Steering Committee also protests the blank check given by the Bush administration and Congress for Israeli military actions. The use of US-supplied weaponry for the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure is deeply abhorrent.

Almost as abhorrent, to us as historians, is the US government's misleadingly one-sided view of the origins of the current conflict, ignoring the overwhelming military and economic superiority of Israel over Gaza, the nearly four decades-long Israeli occupation of Gaza, and the tightening Israeli blockade of Gaza that precipitated Hamas's December 19 abrogation of the truce.*

United for Peace and Justice, the broad anti-war coalition of which HAW is a member, maintains on its web site (at <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/>) a set of links to information on the crisis, updated daily. The UFPJ site also reports on activities around the US and elsewhere in support of a ceasefire and an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. The Steering Committee encourages members and friends of HAW who agree that US policy in the Gaza crisis has been wrong-headed to make their voices heard.

Sarah Shields op ed. printed in Juan Cole's blog

Tuesday, January 13, 2009Shields: I Accuse! An Open Letter to Congress

Sarah Shields writes in a guest op-ed for IC:

I accuse you, the US Congress, of having voted for US House Resolution 34 by an overwhelming margin, 390-5. In the name of protecting Israel’s security, this Resolution instead protects Israel’s “right” to hold a whole population accountable for the violations of a few. By condoning Israel’s behavior over the past two weeks as self-defense, HR 34 condemns one and a half million Gazans to capital punishment without trial for crimes they have not committed. By publicly acknowledging and approving Israel’s behavior, you now share responsibility for the outcomes.Cont'd

I accuse you of having the blood of hundreds of innocent children on your hands. I accuse you of the death of Shahd Abu Halemeh, an infant of 18 months, whose corpse was found badly burned in the wreckage of Gaza. I accuse you of the deaths of the four Salha children, Rola (1), Baha (4), Rana (12), and Dyia (14), who died when the Israelis dropped a missile on their house. I accuse you of the deaths of those killed while seeking refuge from constant bombardment, people who sought protection at a school run by the United Nations. Despite the clear UN markings and flags, Israelis attacked the sanctuary, killing 30 and wounding 50. And I hold you responsible for the lives of the 252 other children killed in the first sixteen days of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and the deaths of those who will be killed as a result of your encouragement.

I accuse you of violating the laws made by the Congress of the United States, laws like the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which insist that American-made weapons may not be used against civilian populations.

I accuse you of supporting flagrant violations of human rights. The combatants you voted to support are required by international law to care for civilian victims of war. Yet the Israeli government denied the International Committee of the Red Cross access to the sites they bombed for four days. The nightmares that resulted are too horrific to be imagined. Perhaps you could contemplate what the ICRC found when it was finally allowed to provide relief for the victims of Israeli bombing: four children, so starved that they could not stand up, huddled by their dead mothers. Food and water have become hard to find, and medicine is vanishing as the need for medical care explodes as more and more missiles land in Gaza. Israel has, nonetheless, targeted not only a UN school, but also a UN convoy bringing desperately needed supplies. The result, according to the ICRC’s director of operations, is catastrophic. "There is no doubt in my mind,” he stated, “that we are dealing with a full blown and major crisis in humanitarian terms. The situation for the people in Gaza is extreme and traumatic as a result of ten days of uninterrupted fighting. In that sense, their situation has clearly become intolerable."

I accuse you of transgressing international law. The United States, as one of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, is required to protect civilians in war, and to call to account anyone who targets them. You have instead voted to support behavior considered criminal according to international law.

I accuse you of making our ally, Israel, less secure than ever before, as the orphans of today seek vengeance in the future. Instead of seeking a real peace, a peace of mutual security and prosperity, you have chosen to support only one side in this ongoing struggle, condemning the others to enormous suffering.

I accuse you of putting politics before humanity, of condoning the slaughter of innocents, of supporting war crimes instead of standing up for the most basic human right: the right to live without the terrifying fear of immediate death.

I hold you responsible, each of these 390 members of America’s 111th Congress. I accuse you of complicity in the most serious transgressions that humans can commit.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Israel and the Creation of Hamas

Sukrit Sabhoolk, a reader of the Hawblog asked about Ron Paul's charge that Israel encrouraged the creation of Hamas as a counterweight to Yasser Arafat. Paul cited this as a classical example of "blockback" in foreign policy. Paul appears to be on firm ground in making the claim.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.

.....

According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis-�-vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said.

"Nothing provides the energy for imitation as much as success," commented one administration expert.....

But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain in strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had another purpose: "To help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists."

In addition, by infiltrating Hamas, Israeli informers could only listen to debates on policy and identify Hamas members who "were dangerous hard-liners," the official said.

In the end, as Hamas set up a very comprehensive counterintelligence system, many collaborators with Israel were weeded out and shot. Violent acts of terrorism became the central tenet, and Hamas, unlike the PLO, was unwilling to compromise in any way with Israel, refusing to acquiesce in its very existence.

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said.

All of which disgusts some former U.S. intelligence officials.

"The thing wrong with so many Israeli operations is that they try to be too sexy," said former CIA official Vincent Cannestraro.

According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, "the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism."

"The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer."

"They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it," he said.

Aid to Hamas may have looked clever, "but it was hardly designed to help smooth the waters," he said. "An operation like that gives weight to President George Bush's remark about there being a crisis in education."

Cordesman said that a similar attempt by Egyptian intelligence to fund Egypt's fundamentalists had also come to grief because of "misreading of the complexities."

An Israeli defense official was asked if Israel had given aid to Hamas said, "I am not able to answer that question. I was in Lebanon commanding a unit at the time, besides it is not my field of interest."

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Five Against the Gaza Resolution

The Democrats and Republicans have apparently not learned anything since they gave a Bush a blank check on his infamous Iraq war resolution. The Senate voted unanimously and the House voted overwhelmingly for a one-sided resolution on Gaza which places all the blame on the Palestinians.

Only five in the House voted against the resolution including the libertarian/progressive antiwar duo: Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). For more details, see here .

Thursday, January 08, 2009

[haw-info] HAW's roundtable at the AHA - in video form on the History News Network web site

To HAW members and friends,

This week's History News Network web page (http://hnn.us) features the Historians Against the War roundtable at the AHA convention January 3, on the subject of "The Bush-Cheney Legacy." There is a separate video link to each of the five talks -- by Alice Kessler-Harris, David Montgomery, Vijay Prashad, Ellen Schrecker, and Barbara Weinstein -- and each of the talks is presented in full, along with introductory remarks by Margaret Power and Van Gosse, organizers of the roundtable.

The roundtable drew in the neighborhood of 100 people, despite not having been organized in time for inclusion in the official AHA program. The talks were very well received. Nearly everyone stayed for the full two hours, and 25-30 people stayed for an open HAW meeting afterward.

Earlier in the day, HAW had a literature table (shared with the Radical History Review) near the book exhibit hall in the Hilton New York, the main conference hotel, and a lot of people stopped by. We also co-sponsored an evening reception held by the Peace History Society, featuring historian and folk singer Larry Wittner.

A final note: A number of people responded to our December 31 appeal for help with HAW's nearly depleted treasury, and we are very grateful. Donations can be made on-line via PayPal, at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/donations.html, or else in the form of a check made out to Historians Against War and mailed to our treasurer, Van Gosse, at 314 West Orange Street, Lancaster, PA 17603. As mentioned in the earlier mailing, donations to HAW are not tax-deductible.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Some Thoughts for the HAW Panel Tomorrow on War and the Economy

From 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. tomorrow in the Empire Ballroom East of the Sheraton New York, 7th Ave. and 53rd St., HAW members and friends will participate in a roundtable: "One Faltering Economy and Two Wars: What Can Historians Contribute? Unfortunately, I can’t be there. While I’m sure there will no shortage of topics, I hope they will include the widely believed theory (at least among my students) that “wars have been good for the economy” in American history.

Variants of this thesis can be found among across the political spectrum. On the right, neocon Conrad Black argues that World War II “had restored prosperity after the free market had failed.” On the left, Paul Krugman similarly writes: “There's nothing magic about spending on tanks and bombs rather than roads and bridges. The reason World War II worked more effectively than the WPA [in terms of promoting economic growth] as that it was *bigger.*” While Krugman might prefer that this “bigger” spending be on roads and bridges, rather than bombs, this does not change the fact he still accepts the overall premise that spending on wars can be good for the economy. If anyone should have greater reason to call this theory into question, it is antiwar historians.

A good place to start are the works of Robert Higgs on war and the economy. Few historians have provided a more powerful response to the Krugman/Black thesis. Higgs examines the most commonly measures of wartime prosperity and finds them wanting. He makes a compelling case that genuine prosperity did not begin to return until the wartime demoblization of 1945 and 1946. Higgs followed in the tradition of Thomas Cochran who in 1961 had convincingly challenged the thesis of Charles Beard that the Civil War had spurred industrialization.